Have been around and own both. The Kimber Montana represents a lot of value for the money spent if you get a shooter. Imo however, the Nula is on another level.
The advantages I have seen are:
The Nula balances better. Recoil is straight back with little face slap. At least with my 7mm-08 no light rifle gymnastics are required to make it shoot off the bench. Light left hand hold on the forend to steady things is all that I do. The consistent accuracy is on a par with many custom rigs that weigh more. .5s at 100 are not uncommon. The same with 1.5 and slightly under at 300. Not always, but often enough to be repeatable. Much easier to workup a great load and most any combination within reason has perked. So far it shoots 140gr nbt, ttsx and accubonds to essentially the same poi with essentially the same level of accuracy. Barrel clean-up has been extremely easy. Overall build quality is and should be better and I would be surprised if any problems would arise, that they would not be handled to your satisfaction.
The Kimber gives great value for the dollars spent. IMO the Nula will be consistently on a higher level with regards to customer satisfaction.
Will the animals know the difference? I doubt it. Is the Nula worth the extra dollar sacrifice? To me yes.
Addition: If you want to see one scary accurate rifle, then you should shoot one of his .22LRs on a still day with match grade ammo. At 50 yards it just keeps laying them on top of one another. Again on a still day it will keep them at an inch at 100.
With a Nula you are getting a known product that should give few surprises other than consistent excellence.
Last edited by battue; 08/23/10.
